[awm]

I'd bid 7♦. I think partner should have the spade king. He knows we have long spades and we don't have the spade king, yet he is still looking for grand. With ♠xx this doesn't make a whole lot of sense. I would place partner with something like:

♠Kx ♥xxx ♦AKxx ♣AQxx

He is interested in the club king and/or various major suit queens for the grand. Note that grand is pretty good here (even better if partner has the ♦T).

[Echognome]

Partner should have something like Kx xxx AKxx Axxx.

He is worried not about spades so much as about disposing of his heart and club losers. I think we have enough to go. Partner has confirmed all of the keys and is still interested in grand when we've denied the ♠K. He has also bid an awful lot. Going big for the 2nd time tonight!

[Apollo81]

agree with adam

[FrancesHinden]

I need to think about partner's options a bit.

From the explanation of the methods, are we confident that partner must be exactly 2344, or just possible 3244? i.e. that 'balanced' excludes 2245 and 1444?

We have shown 5+ spades, 4+ diamonds, all our keycards and the HK. I assume we have not denied the CK.

When he asked for kings, could he have asked directly for the CK rather than bid step 1?

The reason I'm asking is that if partner had this Kx xxx AKxx AQxx that adam suggested, he's not particularly interested in the HK but he's probably prepared to bid a grand opposite the CK.

Similarly, did he have some other way of asking for e.g. the SQ?

[Cascade]

Partner will have the ♦ AK

Partner should have the ♠ K

7♦ could very easily be cold. It should always have some play. We cannot tell.

I bid the grand.

[pclayton]

I'd bid it. We have better than a minimum and I can't tell if pard has the ♠K or not, but even if he has ♠xx ♥Jxx the spade going away, as long as we can handle everything else.

Come to think of it, its hard to come up with a 14 count that makes a grand not worth bidding. xx xxx AKxx AKxx is about the worst I can think of. Would pard really bid 6♣ with this?

[nige1]

Jlall, on Jul 30 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

You hold ♠ AQTxx ♥ AKQx ♦ QJ9x ♣ -
1♣ (1) 2♥ (2)
2♠ (3) 3♣ (4)
3♦ (4) 4♥ (5)
5♦ (6) 5♥ (7)
5N (8) 6♣ (9)

• 16+ art
  
• 14+ balanced, no 5 card suit except a weak 5 card minor and 5332
  
• Natural
  
• Can be a 4 card suit
  
• Keycard for ♦
  
• 2 with the queen
  
• Asking for kings
  
• Shows ♥K, denies ♠K
  
• Still interested in grand.

What should partner have, and what should we bid?

IMO

• ♠ Kx ♥ xxx ♦ AKxx ♣ AJxx or
  ♠ Kx ♥ xxx ♦ AKx ♣ AKQxx
  
• 7♦ = 10, 7N = 9, 7♠ =7, 7♣ = 11 + Special M. de Sade Award.

[han]

I don't think AKQxx qualifies as a weak 5-card suit. Partner clearly is 4-4 in the minors.

[mikeh]

Jlall, on Jul 30 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 30 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

I need to think about partner's options a bit.

yes partner must be 2344 or possibly 3244, no we have not denied the CK, no he could not have asked for the CK to begin with.

Anyways, my hand was Kxx xx AKTx AQJx, my partner did not bid 7 over this bidding. My 3C bid was obviously a weird bid, but I could tell that I wanted to play in 7m not 7S so... heh.

Wow.. I am impressed: you could tell that he lacked the spade J as early as the second round!

And that your 4-4 minor fit would break 3-2 while spades would be J9xx over the AQ10xx

I'm guessing that you just practicing the methods.

[Cascade]

nige1, on Jul 31 2008, 10:56 AM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 30 2008, 12:53 AM, said:

[*] 14+ balanced, no 5 card suit except a weak 5 card minor and 5332

♠ Kx ♥ xxx ♦ AKx ♣ AKQxx

To quote a friend ...

"I will sit up when you show a good 5-card minor"

[nige1]

han, on Jul 30 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

I don't think AKQxx qualifies as a weak 5-card suit. Partner clearly is 4-4 in the minors.

Cascade, on Jul 30 2008, 08:56 PM, said:

To quote a friend ..."I will sit up when you show a good 5-card minor"

Tee hee OK. Mine was a poor example but I was trying to illustrate the obvious fact that 7N might be safer than 7♦. I suppose a better example might be ♠ KJ ♥Jxx ♦AKx ♣Axxxx

[pclayton]

Jlall, on Jul 30 2008, 08:29 PM, said:

mikeh, on Jul 30 2008, 06:55 PM, said:

Jlall, on Jul 30 2008, 05:35 PM, said:

FrancesHinden, on Jul 30 2008, 04:10 PM, said:

I need to think about partner's options a bit.

yes partner must be 2344 or possibly 3244, no we have not denied the CK, no he could not have asked for the CK to begin with.

Anyways, my hand was Kxx xx AKTx AQJx, my partner did not bid 7 over this bidding. My 3C bid was obviously a weird bid, but I could tell that I wanted to play in 7m not 7S so... heh.

Wow.. I am impressed: you could tell that he lacked the spade J as early as the second round!

And that your 4-4 minor fit would break 3-2 while spades would be J9xx over the AQ10xx

I'm guessing that you just practicing the methods.

Is this post a joke or what? I don't get it.

Because its the lack of the ♠J that makes 7♣ great but 7♠ marginal.

I think he's ribbing you.

[Vilgan]

I think 7♦ is fairly obvious. But why is your hand taking over the bidding with keycard? It seems like the other hand could ask all the intelligent questions and then get there easily on their own merits. There is the obvious issue of "weak partner", but constantly taking over in situations like these imo does not ever let them grow stronger. I think there was at least 1 and possibly 2 mistakes made on this hand before the 6♣ bid was made, and they were not the fault of the person w/ the void.

[Edmunte1]

7♦ is obvious, partner must have ♠K+♦AK+♣A for his bid.